Who were the Primative Baptists- and what did they really believe?

From my observation, it appears as though you, and others, love a perversion of the Primitive Baptist doctrine.

The day you, and others, stop using the name Primitive Baptist, I, and many others, will jump for joy! </font>[/QUOTE]Since you acknowledge that Primitive Baptist churches do support mission work that's not very likely.

What specific "perversion" do you accuse me of believing?

Have you recently changed your mind regarding the Lord's command quoted in the Black Rock address? Do you now believe it applies to us today?

 

Do you believe it's about the source of the funds rather than the use of the funds? Does this mean that if the Filipino people paid for all of the mission expenses it would be okay?

Does God pay the preacher or do brothers and sisters inspired by God pay the preacher? Does God invite preachers to come to a church or do brothers and sisters of that church do so hopefully inspired by Him?

Does it matter, scripturally, whether those brothers and sisters are the senders or the receivers?

Do God's children lost in a pagan land call a preacher to come to them or does God inspire his ministers and their supporters to go into pagan lands to preach His word so that His children hungry for it might hear it?

It seems to me you still do not believe the scripture regarding the Lord's command to go and preach the word but rather still believe that work was completed by the apostles just as your pastor once claimed.

I do, however, agree that, in due time, all churches should support themselves to the extent possible because being dependent upon others far away - individuals, governments, or churches - has strings attached. That's what is really good about local churches. Then again, in very poor countries - especially in pagan or communist lands - that can be an overwhelming obstacle for struggling brothers and sisters.

 

The completely unfounded argument against notes in the pulpit is based on Romans 1:15 "So as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also." The claim is made by some that short phrase "as much as in me in " referred to the Holy Spirit in Paul and that since he didn't write "as much as is on my notes" the scripture, therefore and thereby, prohibits the use of notes from the pulpit.

This is the kind of man made opinions that get twisted into alleged scripturally based doctrine by extracting a mere phrase from a single verse and extrapolating it to fit one's own personal preferences! The use of notes has, in some circles, been elevated to the status of heresy and a vile imposition upon the "old paths" of the church.

The phrase merely communicates that Paul, "as far as he was concerned", was ready - eagerly so - to preach to the Romans. Paul surely believed he should be, and was, guided by the Holy Spirit in his preaching, but if he'd been referring to the Holy Spirit in this particular scripture, he would very likely not have hesitated to name Him personally rather than infer Him. Even if it was a veiled reference to the Holy Spirit it still did not constitute an admonishment of using notes any more so than it did an admonishment of using the Holy Bible from the pulpit which was as of that time, at least with respect to the New Testament, still to be written.

Many preachers don't need and don't use notes which is wonderful but if they do then there is no fault based in scripture for doing so. I know one Primitive Baptist minister that probably doesn't even need a Bible from which to preach. He has memorized virtually all of it or at least seems to have because he recites the verses while others read them. Most are not nearly so gifted or practiced and using notes may be a valuable help to them.

The Lord chooses the manner in which He works through His ministers to communicate His words to His children. Man's weakness and short comings - his fallible memory and wandering mind - need not prevent his effective preaching by artificially imposed rules not based in true understanding of scripture. We need not be either for or against notes in the pulpit to make it right.

It is the substance of the message that counts. If the taking or use of notes detract from the substance then they shouldn't be used but if they add to it they most certainly should be.

What counts is the message that's delivered and received - not the means by which it is delivered. What matters is that the message is one that finds pleasure with the Lord because even as it comes from the mouth or pen of the man it comes from Him who knows all the needs of those who hear or read. It is the message that needs to remain upon the "old path" - the "straight and narrow" path - that God wishes us to follow.

 

Dragoon68 wrote:

No, Dragoon68. One reason I am against 'quick ordinations' is because these are proselytes. Proselytes usually have deeply imbedded doctrines they could not easily turn away from.
These were Baptists from other orders. Of the four Filipino elders who came with the American, one's name is a familiar one to me.
Because I was once a missionary Baptist pastor, and I know the doctrines of most missionary Baptists, especially when it comes to tithing.
Tithing is taught as a scriptural command because it is believed that the preacher gets his support from tithing, as well as the other expenses of the church.
They take that, as you and I know, from Malachi.
If those PB's had been adamant about stopping the teaching of tithing because it is unscriptural, I wonder how many would have come over to the PB's ?
[/QUOTE]

Also, Dragoon 68 said:

Again, that is the reason I oppose Quick Ordinations. You have no idea of the poverty of some preachers in third world countries. Sonny Pyles went there and saw poverty in that part of the country where he went, but he hasn't really seen anything yet !
He was in the rural area, and in rural areas, you somehow managed to get food on your table, from loving members who farm small farms either as sharecroppers, or small farm owners, who come by and give you their 'love offerings'.
You wanna see poor ? Go to the cities, where those four Filipino preachers come from, two of whom left because they could not stomach the fact that the American instructed all churches and members to send him the money and he will take care of the distribution of funds.
One of those preachers already had a church sending him aid directly before they came to the States, before they met the American, and guess what, that stopped.

Furthermore, if God was able to feed Elijah thru birds, why shouldn't he be able to support His ministers whom He called if the church members are either too poor to support the minister, or just plain tightwads ?

 

Drzagoon 68 said:

I think this comment is a bit lopsided.
Le tme ask you: Is there such a thing as a great commission ? Was that great commission handed to the church ? Is the purpose of that great commission to save souls ?

I think neither you nor Brother Reed nor I would say that the 'great commission', if there is such an animal as that, was for the purpose of saving souls.

Rather, it is for the purpose of discipling, of teaching, of setting up gospel churches, wherever the Lord, and not man, directs.

And I think all three of us will agree that this command was given only to the apostles, and through them, to those chosen and called by God into the ministry, whose gifts are publicly recognized by the churches they belong to.

Now, if the job is to teach, how are they to teach ? They are to teach faithfully , that is, not adding one iota of false, or at the least, questionable doctrine.

Do you see the words 'non-essentials' in your Bible ? I don't see them in mine. Yet, they, who will not teach tithing in their churches here in the States, tell these Filipinos, it is okay to teach it in their churches, if that has been the accepted norm for supporting ministers, since these are simply non-essentials.

How absurd.

One brother in our church here in the States said, when I taught against quick ordinations, without mentioning the Philippines directly, that quick ordinations are not really an issue, because those in the 'old paths' are just as guilty of this as those in support of missionism.

And that brother was for continued association with the missionists.

Excuse me, but, as far as I am concerned, all PB churches could do quick ordinations if they like, and they are not accountable to me, or to the church I pastored, but to God, but as far as I am concerned, I will preach against it because it is wrong, and will not tolerate it in our church, and even if every PB church does quick ordinations, the Bibles they hold and the Bible I hold will still say 'lay hands suddenly on no man' ten thousand years from now.

If as you say, the mere mention of the word begets a 'near tantrum' among those of us who oppose the liberalism of today among our people, it is because the very first group who went out to the Philippines blew it, and blew it big, when they quickly ordained an adulterer into the ministry, and called it God's work.

That should have been a signal right there and then that these works are men's works and they are not God's.

But, did they repent ?

No way, Jose. They gave excuses for themselves, and for one another.

 

Thanks for replying Pinoybaptist! I'm going to break up my responses into a couple of issues just to separate the thoughts a bit.

I'm also against quick ordinations whether here or abroad. I see this a greater concern when the person is a new Christian - a novice - and might not yet be correct and strong in the faith. I also see it as a concern when the person is changing from one Christian order to another especially if there are significant differences in what they believe. When different cultures are also involved the complication of correctly sorting things out becomes more difficult.

In the case of the Philippine work, I understand from reports received that errors - based in anxiousness to make progress in God's work - were made early on and have been acknowledged since. This, to me, doesn't discredit the whole mission work but merely the specific ordinations which, perhaps, should have not been so hastily performed.

The same thing, of course, happens right here in this country. Churches do make mistakes in ordination of ministers as well as in election of officers. Sometimes, even people seemingly well versed - no longer novices at all - go astray or, perhaps, never had it right to start with. The mere fact that there's much disagreement among people of such standing illustrates that this is clearly the case. For a given issue there can only be one truth yet good men often can not seem to agree upon it.

 

Many of us have, in fact, seen real poverty in foreign lands in both the rural and urban areas. Within my own family, there are those who lived in poverty during the early years of their lives or during years of war and oppression in those foreign lands and there still some who, while doing much better in recent years, still live there far below the relatively high standard we enjoy in this country. But, of course, no matter how bad one person has it someone else somewhere sometime had it worse. We are extremely blessed in this country and even the poor do well compared to many in other lands.

I can understand the issues involved in distributing funds received as generous gifts and placed in the administrative care of another to be allocated according to defined purposes and need. No matter how it's handled someone is likely not to be happy about all the decisions made. It can be a problem right here is this country even among ministers.

 

This is an interesting topic Pinoybaptist. It's one we've all heard about from different Primitive Baptists and there is certainly controversy amongst us about it! Here's a couple of the key verses of scripture that, as you know, concern the issue:

Matthew 28:16-20

Mark 16:14-18

Here, again, is an extract from the Black Rock Address of 1832 which is generally believed to be the starting point of the Primitive Baptist churches.

Extract from Black Rock Address of 1832

This to me clearly confirms that Primitive Baptists do regard the Lord's commands as binding upon them today. It is important to note that they supported evangelism - including mission work to the destitute - but objected to certain plans for such work constituted under the name of missions - i.e., work called missions but which was not such.

Yes, I believe evangelism - including mission work to foreign lands - is something we should still support.

In 1832 we'd probably have been arguing over mission work to the destitute among us rather than abroad since America was still very much a growing nation far from the widespread prosperity it enjoys today.

 

God certainly does have the power to provide for His ministers needs. He could, from nothing at all, make the plate of rice, bowl of soup, and cup of tea appear upon the table for each meal for the minister and his family as well as the clothes, the housing, the transportation, and the other things necessary for subsistence of the human body and performance of daily routines. The manner in which He does so is far more likely to be through the generous gifts of others in not through the compensation of the minister's own secular work or some combination of both.

God's word is just as effective in poverty and it is in wealth but surely it must be just a little easier - because of mankind's physical limitations - to focus upon preaching God's word if he's not having to scratch out a living from dawn to dusk. Such a man - minister or not - can always be a witness for God no matter where he is but, perhaps, God would prefer that he be free to focus his entire energy as a full time minister upon God's work from dawn to dusk.

It is a blessing that brothers and sisters of some churches are able and willing to give generously of their own earnings to support brothers and sisters of other churches - emerging or standing - and the work of missionaries they've sent to preach the word of God and help them establish correct and solid doctrine.

 

Dragoon68:

You keep on drifting, no disrespect intended, to the necessity of supporting those who go out to the field.
As Brother Reed had pointed out, the majority those who are objecting to the current trend of liberalism creeping in among PB's do not, per se, object to the idea of going out to preach the gospel and of supporting those who do.

But, the support has to be from the local church from which this 'missionary' went out of, to this preacher who went out from them, and other such churches as may feel the call to assist the preacher.

To have all these aids coursed through, of all things, a website, and from then on to the hands of one man who proceeds to 'dole out' financial assistance equally, is grossly unscriptural.

The church I used to pastor was, and still is, supportive of this man's work in the Philippines, and when I was called to pastor I decided I would simply proceed carefully on this matter, bearing in mind the Scriptural injunction not to receive an accusation against an elder.

My thinking then was that all these things being said against the work being done would fall into the category of hearsay, since none of those who oppose have ever been to the Philippines, nor have ever been former members of any group that have 'gone out'.

However, when the American and the four Filipino elders came, I decided to invite two of these elders to my house for some Filipino lunch, and make inquiries, and though no direct answers were given, strong hints of some things going awry were given.

Nevertheless, after they left, I told the church that those among us who would like to assist the Filipino PB churches may do so by directly sending to the churches they wish to assist their funds, or by putting these monies into the box at the back of the church, with instructions on whom and where to send, and I posted the bank account details of the Filipino PB churches at the church bulletin board.

Much to my chagrin, a month from their return to the Philippines, our church received a number of solicitation envelopes from the American minister with destination address to him via the website.

This, plus some investigations I made on my own, led to my personally withdrawing support from these activities, and speaking out, in writing, against liberalism and their purveyors.

 

I resigned from pastoring the church, though I am still a serving elder, because of differences regarding this issue with two deacons and another elder.
I believe the Old Paths to be the correct paths.
Yes to preaching the gospel, no to missionism.
Yes to assisting those among us in the ministry who go out to heed a call they felt.
No to any form of mission board, no to any form of control of funds.
Yes to preaching the whole counsel of God, no to such things as essentials or non-essentials, which could be an excuse to bring in heresies and false practices.
Yes to assisting struggling PB churches, Filipino, Chinese, African, Indian, or what not, no to centralizing this assistance.
Yes to teaching others who may teach others also, no to quick ordinations of proselytes or new converts.
Yes to just quietly working for the honor and glory of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who will reward the laborer openly, no to parading the results of this work, as in preaching trips to the United States.
Yes to dependence on the Lord to provide an ingathering of His people wherever and however He feels fit to do so, no to numbering God's people as in Preachers' National Conventions.

 

I am a bit weary of all of this, no offense to any of the participants heretofore. It may be of little or no consequence what I have to say.

When the controversey over the Philippine mission first came up, I saw no harm in it from the information I was given at the time. As I understood it, and still do, some folks felt impressed to go, and that was all fine and good. The problem arose when an organization called White Under Harvest was created to funnel money to a particular individual for his efforts in that country. I have received some literature from the minister and organization in question, which some, including me, was found to be offensive on some levels. You know that most of we Primitive baptists are not into laying guilt trips on people, and that was how it felt. When I was in high school a gazillion years ago, I attended a Methodist camp meeting with a girl, and put some money in the plate with their card, and got the guilt trip correspondence for years afterward--that I wasnt doing enough to help the Lord. Well, duh, I didn't realize He needed my help, rather quite the reverse, that I needed his help.

I honestly wish that we Primitives had never divided over this issue, and there is wrong enough on both sides of the thing to go around. We Primitives, like most other Baptists, have little patience for working things out. Folks started declaring this or that to be out of order, and the other side, would do things which only made the matter worse, so much so, I despair of there ever being any reconcilliation on the issue, at least in my lifetime.

But the fact does remain that the work in the Philippines is contrary to the traditional Primitive Baptist understanding of scripture. Jesus told his disciples to go into all the world -- not for them to send others, and there in lies the significant difference of opinion. The debate of whether the great commission was given to the church at large or to the apostles alone. The majority PB view has held that the commission was to the apostles alone, as I understand the position of those I have conversed about it with across the country over the last 30 years.

Like Paul, I know in part, see in part, and look through a glass darkly. But one thing I have learned is that if there is something I don't understand, there are likely to be some of the brethren who do, and it is wise to listen to the council of the elders and come to some consensus on the issues of the day. That is what was not done in the present schism--on either side.

As for the other issues of the day which are separating our people, they probably would have never caused a serious breach of fellowship, but this organization, mentioned above, is the principal central issue. Additionally there are some reports of doctrinal irregularities among those who are advocating the Philippine effort, which are actually more troubling than the effort itself. Attempts to get clear answers on this issues have not been successful among the circle among which I move.

I hope and pray for peace in Zion, but understanding human nature don't expect to see it in this life.

Grace and peace to all.

Jeff Weaver

 

Thank you for th einput, Brother Jeff.
Let me share with you waht the two Filipino elders who have separated from this 'particular individual' told me, with regards to doctrinal issues:

1. A Presbyterian minister, who was excluded from his church, was leading no congregation, was ordained an elder by this particular individual, in 2005;

2. As already mentioned above, tithing has been called 'non-essential' and is left to the discretion of the minister of the local church;

3. Financial support in exchange for becoming PB's which according to them, partly explains the fast growth there.

I would not be surprised, really, at the website, and preaching trips, and newletters, because, when you receive money from others, you tend to be accountable to those who send you money, that is why it is always best to depend only on the Lord, and be accountable only to Him.

A few years ago, I had a visitor from the Philippines, a pastor from another order of Baptist, whom I knew personally. His soteriology was almost like the PB's, and the American visited with him several times, preached at his church several times, and offered him the position of coordinator in that particular area of the Philippines where he was at, which was about 200 miles from the American's home base.

Of course, along with the position of 'coordinator' came the promise of financial support, and the unspoken condition of joining the Primitive Baptist. He refused, for the reason, as he honestly stated, that he just was not convinced with our practice of not using musical instruments.

So, there.

I said this once, and I'll say it again, it is not those who remain in the Old Ways that caused this division, rather, it is those who introduced irregularities who did.

True, there are those in the Old Paths side who are a bit in the extreme side, but, when all is said and done, I would rather be identified with the conservative and primitive, than with the modern.

 

I understand and respect your decision. Others, who have been and participated, continue to see the work in the Philippines differently. They also stand against true liberalism in the church but don't believe that's a correct definition for the work in the Philippines or elsewhere. They're concerned that we, as Primitive Baptists, are letting the concerns over some reports from the work in the Philippines set us all strongly against all mission work in direct contradiction to our Lord's commands. They'd be happy to help correct any problems in any area but they don't want to withdraw into an anti-missions stance on the basis of some alledged problems or divide brother against brother.

 

Bro. Tim.

Thanks. I am sure you are more aware of what is going on there than I, because of your ethnicity and affiliation at Columbia. I am more or less disabled from much, and don't travel much anymore.

The doctrinal point that I believe is causing the consternation is "Gospel regeneration." Which would be a huge stop sign for me having much to do with these modern-day progressives.

At any rate, I fear it is too late for reconcilli-ation, which is what the point above was. I have taken my side with the Old form, and will remain there as long as health and reason permit.

I understand the comment about the essentials. The problem with the essentials is that not everyone is satisfied with what they are. And being of the baptist family, that ain't never going to happen either. And that gets us back to the original idea of the thread, "Who are the Primitive Baptists and what do they really believe?" Since we have no umbrella heirarchy, there is no one who can really answer that question to everyones statisfaction.

Down here in my part of the world, folks take the 1689 London Confession, and usually have summarized it in 10-20 articles of faith. But even the articles of faith are subject to interpretation, and not all would agree with the meaning of the words, or their application.

Sometimes it might be worthwhile to have a bishop to enforce doctrinal uniformity. (only 1/2 tongue in cheek).

Hope all is well in Maryland. I get nostaligic on occasion, but I was born and reared in these hills, but I miss the fellowship and opportunities for culture and such as you have up there.

Jeff

 

I wish that as well Bro. Jeff. I also agree there is probably fault on both sides of this issue. Reconcilliation does seem hopeless, and by human power, I'm certain it is. Perhaps we - both sides - should lock ourselves away together and come before the Lord in humble prayer that His truth might prevail over all our observations, conclusions, attacks, defenses, allegations, denials, etc. In Him there is power to reconcile.

 

Hey, Bro. Jeff, we have lots of culture down here in Texas!

 

Excluding the controversy over the Philippine work do any of my fellow Primitive Baptists have any examples they'd care to provide of any mission work they feel is being properly handled and which they fully support?

 

Actually I have preached in Amarillo, Texas 21 years ago. I live San Antonio, and east Texas, west Texas not so much, too brown for my taste.

As for missionary work being properly handled, I am not too up on what is going on in Africa, but that might not be too far from what might be appropriate,but I have heard no where near as much about this effort as that in the Philippines either. As I mentioned before, I think, it isn't the mission, its the organization that is the problem for most of us.

One thing I have noticed in my nearly 30 years in the ministry is that things, even here in the U.S. have changed. When I first started, meetings in homes, union halls, etc. were common, now they are a rarity. Some of the best meetings I have ever participated in were in these locales. So, even the local "missions" situation has changed, and why I cannot explain. One reached a lot of people in these home meetings that would never darken the door of a meeting house. Children and grandchildren of church members would attend meeting at grandma's house that wouldn't come on Sunday morning.

I haven't been invited to preach at anyone's home in several years.

So, what does it all mean? I haven't figured it out.

My health has failed, and I don't travel around anymore. What is the experience of you brethren on non-church building meetings?

 

I honestly have no idea at all about India or Africa.
When I retire and go back home to the Philippines, I will most probably start a congregation there, Lord willing and permitting.
I envision this to be a house church.
I agree that a house church is much better than a formal meeting house for the reasons you cited, Brother Jeff.
I will also teach young men, as Timothy was taught by Paul, and leave it up to God to call them where He wants them.
I will avoid the errors of the original groups like quick ordinations, quick expansions, and will stick to the Old School doctrines and practices.
I will shun associations whenever possible. Just quietly work for our Lord and Savior.
House churches will be the direction we will take.
Friendlier, with visitors feeling more laid back.
Not that having your own building is a bad idea.